Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Amazon MQ

54
321
+ 1
12
Amazon SQS

2.9K
2K
+ 1
171
Add tool

Amazon MQ vs Amazon SQS: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will explore the key differences between Amazon MQ and Amazon SQS in the context of their messaging systems.

  1. MQ Broker vs. Message Queue: Amazon MQ is a fully managed message broker service that supports the Apache ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ messaging protocols. It provides a powerful broker-based messaging system that allows for advanced features like message filtering, prioritization, and redelivery policies. On the other hand, Amazon SQS is a managed message queuing service that decouples the components of a distributed application by allowing them to communicate asynchronously. Unlike Amazon MQ, it does not provide a full-fledged broker system and relies on simple message queues instead.

  2. Protocol Support: Amazon MQ supports both the Apache ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ protocols, which have been widely used in enterprise messaging scenarios. It provides compatibility with existing applications built using these protocols, allowing for a smooth transition to the managed service. In contrast, Amazon SQS uses a proprietary protocol and does not support the ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ protocols directly. However, it does provide SDKs and client libraries for different programming languages to simplify the integration process.

  3. Message Persistence: Amazon MQ allows you to choose the level of message persistence based on your use case requirements. It supports both durable and non-durable messaging, where durable messages are stored on disk to ensure reliability even in the event of a system failure. On the other hand, Amazon SQS ensures message durability by storing messages redundantly across multiple availability zones of the region, eliminating the risk of message loss.

  4. Message Delivery: Amazon MQ supports both message push and message pull models. In the push model, the messaging system actively delivers messages to consumers, while in the pull model, consumers actively poll the broker to retrieve messages. This flexibility allows you to design your applications based on the specific requirements. In contrast, Amazon SQS exclusively uses a message pull model, where consumers actively retrieve messages from the queue. The pull model is more suitable for scenarios where the consumer needs to control the rate of message processing.

  5. Throughput and Scalability: Amazon MQ provides greater throughput and scalability compared to Amazon SQS. It supports a higher number of messages per second and concurrent connections, making it suitable for high-volume, high-throughput applications. On the other hand, Amazon SQS is designed for high elasticity, automatically scaling up or down based on the incoming load. It can handle large bursts of traffic without any manual intervention, making it a good choice for applications with unpredictable workloads.

  6. Deployment Complexity: Amazon MQ requires more configuration and management compared to Amazon SQS. As a fully managed message broker service, Amazon MQ requires you to provision and manage the underlying broker instances, including capacity planning, scaling, and installation of updates. In contrast, Amazon SQS abstracts away the infrastructure management, allowing you to focus solely on the messaging logic.

In summary, Amazon MQ provides a robust message broker system with support for multiple protocols, advanced features, and high throughput. On the other hand, Amazon SQS offers a simpler message queuing system with seamless scalability and reliability, ideal for decoupling components in distributed applications.

Advice on Amazon MQ and Amazon SQS
Pulkit Sapra
Needs advice
on
Amazon SQSAmazon SQSKubernetesKubernetes
and
RabbitMQRabbitMQ

Hi! I am creating a scraping system in Django, which involves long running tasks between 1 minute & 1 Day. As I am new to Message Brokers and Task Queues, I need advice on which architecture to use for my system. ( Amazon SQS, RabbitMQ, or Celery). The system should be autoscalable using Kubernetes(K8) based on the number of pending tasks in the queue.

See more
Replies (1)
Anis Zehani
Recommends
on
KafkaKafka

Hello, i highly recommend Apache Kafka, to me it's the best. You can deploy it in cluster mode inside K8S, thus you can have a Highly available system (also auto scalable).

Good luck

See more
Meili Triantafyllidi
Software engineer at Digital Science · | 6 upvotes · 434.6K views
Needs advice
on
Amazon SQSAmazon SQSRabbitMQRabbitMQ
and
ZeroMQZeroMQ

Hi, we are in a ZMQ set up in a push/pull pattern, and we currently start to have more traffic and cases that the service is unavailable or stuck. We want to: * Not loose messages in services outages * Safely restart service without losing messages (ZeroMQ seems to need to close the socket in the receiver before restart manually)

Do you have experience with this setup with ZeroMQ? Would you suggest RabbitMQ or Amazon SQS (we are in AWS setup) instead? Something else?

Thank you for your time

See more
Replies (2)
Shishir Pandey
Recommends
on
RabbitMQRabbitMQ

ZeroMQ is fast but you need to build build reliability yourself. There are a number of patterns described in the zeromq guide. I have used RabbitMQ before which gives lot of functionality out of the box, you can probably use the worker queues example from the tutorial, it can also persists messages in the queue.

I haven't used Amazon SQS before. Another tool you could use is Kafka.

See more
Kevin Deyne
Principal Software Engineer at Accurate Background · | 5 upvotes · 195.1K views
Recommends
on
RabbitMQRabbitMQ

Both would do the trick, but there are some nuances. We work with both.

From the sound of it, your main focus is "not losing messages". In that case, I would go with RabbitMQ with a high availability policy (ha-mode=all) and a main/retry/error queue pattern.

Push messages to an exchange, which sends them to the main queue. If an error occurs, push the errored out message to the retry exchange, which forwards it to the retry queue. Give the retry queue a x-message-ttl and set the main exchange as a dead-letter-exchange. If your message has been retried several times, push it to the error exchange, where the message can remain until someone has time to look at it.

This is a very useful and resilient pattern that allows you to never lose messages. With the high availability policy, you make sure that if one of your rabbitmq nodes dies, another can take over and messages are already mirrored to it.

This is not really possible with SQS, because SQS is a lot more focused on throughput and scaling. Combined with SNS it can do interesting things like deduplication of messages and such. That said, one thing core to its design is that messages have a maximum retention time. The idea is that a message that has stayed in an SQS queue for a while serves no more purpose after a while, so it gets removed - so as to not block up any listener resources for a long time. You can also set up a DLQ here, but these similarly do not hold onto messages forever. Since you seem to depend on messages surviving at all cost, I would suggest that the scaling/throughput benefit of SQS does not outweigh the difference in approach to messages there.

See more
MITHIRIDI PRASANTH
Software Engineer at LightMetrics · | 4 upvotes · 269.9K views
Needs advice
on
Amazon MQAmazon MQ
and
Amazon SQSAmazon SQS
in

I want to schedule a message. Amazon SQS provides a delay of 15 minutes, but I want it in some hours.

Example: Let's say a Message1 is consumed by a consumer A but somehow it failed inside the consumer. I would want to put it in a queue and retry after 4hrs. Can I do this in Amazon MQ? I have seen in some Amazon MQ videos saying scheduling messages can be done. But, I'm not sure how.

See more
Replies (1)
Andres Paredes
Lead Senior Software Engineer at InTouch Technology · | 1 upvotes · 206.4K views
Recommends
on
Amazon SQSAmazon SQS

Mithiridi, I believe you are talking about two different things. 1. If you need to process messages with delays of more 15m or at specific times, it's not a good idea to use queues, independently of tool SQM, Rabbit or Amazon MQ. you should considerer another approach using a scheduled job. 2. For dead queues and policy retries RabbitMQ, for example, doesn't support your use case. https://medium.com/@kiennguyen88/rabbitmq-delay-retry-schedule-with-dead-letter-exchange-31fb25a440fc I'm not sure if that is possible SNS/SQS support, they have a maximum delay for delivery (maxDelayTarget) in seconds but it's not clear the number. You can check this out: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sns/latest/dg/sns-message-delivery-retries.html

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Amazon MQ
Pros of Amazon SQS
  • 7
    Supports low IQ developers
  • 3
    Supports existing protocols (JMS, NMS, AMQP, STOMP, …)
  • 2
    Easy to migrate existing messaging service
  • 62
    Easy to use, reliable
  • 40
    Low cost
  • 28
    Simple
  • 14
    Doesn't need to maintain it
  • 8
    It is Serverless
  • 4
    Has a max message size (currently 256K)
  • 3
    Triggers Lambda
  • 3
    Easy to configure with Terraform
  • 3
    Delayed delivery upto 15 mins only
  • 3
    Delayed delivery upto 12 hours
  • 1
    JMS compliant
  • 1
    Support for retry and dead letter queue
  • 1
    D

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Amazon MQ
Cons of Amazon SQS
  • 4
    Slow AF
  • 2
    Has a max message size (currently 256K)
  • 2
    Proprietary
  • 2
    Difficult to configure
  • 1
    Has a maximum 15 minutes of delayed messages only

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

What is Amazon MQ?

Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for Apache ActiveMQ that makes it easy to set up and operate message brokers in the cloud.

What is Amazon SQS?

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

What companies use Amazon MQ?
What companies use Amazon SQS?
See which teams inside your own company are using Amazon MQ or Amazon SQS.
Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with Amazon MQ?
What tools integrate with Amazon SQS?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

Blog Posts

GitHubPythonNode.js+47
54
72279
GitHubGitSlack+30
27
18267
GitHubDockerAmazon EC2+23
12
6560
GitHubPythonSlack+25
7
3148
What are some alternatives to Amazon MQ and Amazon SQS?
RabbitMQ
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.
IBM MQ
It is a messaging middleware that simplifies and accelerates the integration of diverse applications and business data across multiple platforms. It offers proven, enterprise-grade messaging capabilities that skillfully and safely move information.
ActiveMQ
Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.
Kafka
Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.
Azure Service Bus
It is a cloud messaging system for connecting apps and devices across public and private clouds. You can depend on it when you need highly-reliable cloud messaging service between applications and services, even when one or more is offline.
See all alternatives